Pages

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

2012 CrossFit Games Re-Cap

2012 CrossFit Games

Spending the weekend at the CrossFit Games as a
non-competitor wasn’t easy. I was
happy for any distraction during the event as I found much of it difficult to
watch. I will say that it got
easier as the weekend wore on… something about cold beer and good weather seems
to cheer you up no matter how sour your mood is. But there’s no doubt in my mind which side of the wall I’d
rather be on.

There were a few things that stuck out for me this weekend
that I want to share. First, we’ve
almost outgrown the Home Depot Center, if that’s even possible. It was an army of spectators all 3 days
I was there. The Vendor Village
was like an Indian Bazaar, hustling and bustling at all hours. Food and drinks were being sold everywhere
at exorbitant prices, taking advantage of a fan base with nowhere else to
go. Viewing in the stadium was
packed for every event, and waiting in line for the bathroom felt like I was at
an NFL game. The growth that this
phenomenon continues to support is scary and exciting.

Second, there is an accelerating professionalism that is
permeating the event from the ground up.
The spider cam (a camera strung between wires from 3 different points
above the track and stadium) captured some unreal footage of the athletes
during the workouts, inevitably preparing ESPN viewers for some great
television. The jumbo-tron filled
the gaps between events with back-stories and interviews that put human faces
to many of the competitors. The
sideline reporters asked good questions, didn’t harass the athletes horribly,
and in general did a great job. If
I had to point out a flaw in this evolution, however, it would have to be the
announcers. As everything around
the Games has become more professional, this aspect is lagging behind. Routinely butchering names, losing
track of competitor’s progress, and often focusing solely on one individual out
of 12, this is an area that can stand an upgrade. By the end of the weekend, Dave Castro had re-emerged to
assist with this aspect, a welcome sight for those of us who remember the days
when he did the entire thing himself with knowledge of the individuals and
events. I know this is not an easy
job, but as the sport grows, so too must the standard by which its voice is measured.

Third, the programming for the event was brilliant, in my
opinion. In 15 scored events over
4 days, athletes were tested across a truly broad and balanced range of
aptitudes. There were pure tests
of endurance (triathalon), agility (obstacle course), speed (sprint), power
(ball toss & broad jump), and strength (clean ladder). There were surprise elements that the
athletes had never practiced (double banger, medball clean). There were WODs that cruxed on
gymnastics movements (parallette hspu & bar muscle ups) and WODs that
cruxed on strength movements (Chipper & Isabel). There was even some good old-fashioned grunt work (rope/sled
WOD). Perhaps most importantly,
athletes weren’t told ahead of time what they would be doing, so everyone had
to rely on their training and adaptability to succeed. Without much exaggeration, this year’s
Games had a little bit of everything so that no one type of athlete could hide
their weaknesses. Watching as the
events were announced and completed, I was impressed and appreciative of the
work and thought that had obviously gone into programming the weekend.

But the depth of the programming here seemed to highlight
the lack of depth therein at the Regionals. Watching the footage of the triathalon and seeing some of
the times, it was clear that many were merely trying to survive rather than
compete. The paralettes gobbled
all but a few women, and most men were barely keeping a 1:45 pace per 400 on
the triplet. Talking with fans
around the event over the course of the weekend, many were echoing the same
concern: why did they have to wait until the Games to see such a balanced test
of fitness? Compared to what they
were watching in Carson, most felt that the Regional was little more than a
weightlifting contest, and a rehearsed one at that. The obvious answer to this question is thus: logistics and
reproducibility. If the Regional
must be done in 17 different locations, the event planners don’t have the
luxury of programming anything too crazy.
I agree on this point: there’s no way to test what the Games can test in
17 different places. However, I do
think it is possible to make the test more similar to the Games than it is
now. 3 major ideas to support this: 1) Hold every Regional on the same
weekend. It’ll shrink the website
traffic and lessen the buzz of what has been a 6 week feeding frenzy, but it
keeps the workouts from becoming a practiced skill instead of an unknown and
unknowable test as CrossFit is designed to be. This would eliminate the athlete who depends on “cramming”
and force everyone to rely solely on the quality and balance of their training
to that point. 2) Host every
Regional at a track. It is beyond
argument that it’s important to test running in fitness—hosting the Regionals
at a facility with a track allow a spectator friendly, reproducible option for
doing so. 3) Do a long WOD. It’s obvious that aerobic endurance is
a priority at the Games—3 of the past 4 years the Games have opened with an
event that is longer than 40 minutes.
The sum time of my events at Regionals this year was 54:00. There is a disconnect here. Doing a legitimate aerobic endurance workout
isn’t necessarily the spectator friendly thing to program, but it means that in
order to get to the Games you have to prove that part of your fitness. This would be a good thing.

Finally, not being in the athlete tent preparing for
workouts allowed me to observe and digest other aspects of the Games like never
before. This was great! The energy around the vendor village
was cool to be a part of, along with seeing the different types of people that
have come from around the world to be a part of CrossFit history. The team competition was a lesson in
camaraderie and teamwork, with the stadium seeming to change colors between
heats as droves of supporters screamed to make their presence felt. During the individual competition, I
learned a bit about how we as athletes are perceived from a distance. It wasn’t hard to tell who were the fan
favorites. Camille Leblanc-Bazinet
always received a loud ovation, along with Jason Khalipa, Chris Spealer, Matt
Chan, and Annie Sakamoto.
Defending champions Annie Thorisdottir and Rich Froning were also
consistently cheered, for obvious reasons. 2010 champs Kristin Clever and Graham Holmberg drew some
applause as well. The majority of
the athletes, however, did not elicit much of a response from the crowd unless
they did something of note during the workout. I thought this was telling in a couple ways.

First, it’s obvious that although the crowds were larger
than they have ever been, most athletes are still unknown to the majority of
spectators. People were responding
not because they loved or hated the individual, but largely because they
recognized the name. I expect that
as the sport grows, so too will the media coverage, and eventually the number
of athletes with whom the crowd holds favor will increase.

The second thought I had was that spectators are thirsty for
some sort of connection to these athletes. They need to feel like they know them in order to cheer for
them. Throughout the weekend I
watched this “knowing” occur almost spontaneously when an athlete would smile
at the crowd or scream as they finished a lift. The same thing happened if an athlete was repeatedly failing
attempt after attempt. It dawned
on me that between the focus and intensity of competition, most athletes must
look like cyborgs from the stands—more machines than men. The truth is, people want to see pain
and anguish. They want to see
joy. These are elements of life
that they recognize and relate to, so seeing them at the Games makes the
athletes human. Better, it makes
them heroes.

Ultimately, I left the 2012 Games
as proud a part of the CrossFit community as I have ever been. I was more impressed with the events,
organization, and performances than ever before, and the professionalism with
which this event is being handled only bodes well for its future. As an athlete, I am motivated to excel;
as a fan, I am quick to applaud. 2013
starts today.

12 comments:

Thanks for these thoughts. It was my first visit to the Games, and I loved it. I really liked how you could walk right up to the edge of the seats by the Athletes' Village and watch the athletes up close. A bit like exotic animals in a zoo. That's pretty cool for a fan.

Any insight into why HQ chooses to spread Regionals across several weekends?

Awesome thoughts Blair! I was wondering what your thoughts were about the team side of competition at the Games, with the programming, athletes, and environment? What differences did you see with the team side of competition and the individual side?

@logan, i absolutely loved the team competition. never really had the chance to watch much of it before this year and i found it riveting. the 400 relay was sick, and the sled drive brutal. i think it was a good change to force all 6 members to compete in all events. made things less about specialists and more about top to bottom fitness. the team event requires a lot more strategy than the individual, which is also cool. it also relies on smaller timing elements between transitions and rest that are absent from the individual side.

equipment would be tough, but i suspect the community would rise to pick up the slack if needed. rogue would have to outfit the sites with rigs and the big stuff. but boxes, bumpers, bars, etc could come from local affiliates. the bigger hang up is money. as it stands now, the various sponsors and vendors have the opportunity to move around to multiple regions. doing it this way means that the regionals generate a lot more revenue if done on different weekends, as the same vendors pay repeatedly for the right to set up their tents.

Great writeup, I've been searching for some blog posts that "cover" the Games and stumbled across yours. I've been looking for some analysis of the Games, both positive and negative, but have been really surprised how little coverage there is outside of the Games site itself.

Great points though on the programming of Regionals and the quality of the presentation as a whole.